Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Obama Proposes High-Speed Rail System For the US

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the self-mucking-biodiesel-ponies dept.

Transportation 1385

fantomas writes "The BBC reports that 'US President Barack Obama has announced his "vision for high-speed rail" in the country, which would create jobs, ease congestion and save energy.' Can rail work in the land where the car is king? Would you travel on the new high speed lines?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

In a word... (5, Insightful)

hellfire (86129) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611577)

Yes.

Re:In a word... (2)

Marvin01 (909379) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611617)

A thousand times yes.

Re:In a word... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27611733)

A million times yes. Rail is already the best way to travel if you have the time. Make it high-speed and it will be the best way to travel, period.

Re:In a word... (1)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611619)

we can

In two words (2, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611667)

Hell yes!

On behalf of all Canadians... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27611693)

Please take Vancouver, Montreal, and any other city I might've missed off that list. Thanks.

Re:On behalf of all Canadians... (4, Funny)

fracai (796392) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611795)

Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrooke?

Re:On behalf of all Canadians... (1)

FormOfActionBanana (966779) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611883)

What list? Parent said "Yes"...

Re:In a word... (2, Interesting)

immakiku (777365) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611855)

As someone who strongly prefers not to drive and does not have a car, YES. I live in NYC, which while having not such a great subway system, has a system I appreciate being able to use every day.

I just hope this doesn't displace automobiles completely. Cars/highways definitely allow us much more freedom that I don't want to see creep away.

Re:In a word... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27611869)

Hell yes I would. The dimished use of the light rail systems and rail systems in favor of highways and buses decades ago was a damn shame.

Re:In a word... (5, Insightful)

xgr3gx (1068984) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611915)

Me too - rail would be awesome, but you have to be able to connect the rail ways effectivley.

Example, I take the bus to work and it drops me pretty close to my building, that works great.

Recently, I changed locations, and now I'm about a 10 minute walk to my building, which is fine too, but some people I rode with drive in now because this new building has a free parking lot. Free parking is not worth 45mins of driving + traffic + burning more gas + milage on my car.

If the train station was more than a few blocks away from peoples' destinations, how many lazy Americans do you think will want to walk that far? I think most would say - F' it, I'll drive in.

Re:In a word... (1)

morari (1080535) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611953)

Yes, yes, yes!

This is exactly what the country has needed for many, many years. Being such a large, open land this makes perfect sense. Not only will this make general travel easier, thus opening up new areas of commerce and "getaways" to people, but will also widen the job markets for those areas connected. This would be a boon to everyone except those with private jets. :P

Hopefully future expansions will be made as well, as there are plenty of places that could stand to be connected. Arguably, rural areas would benefit more than already high traffic cities.

Re:In a word... (5, Interesting)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612121)

I love trains but ... America just seems too big for inter-city travel. Wait 'til you find out how much it costs before you sign up for this.

Re:In a word... (5, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612027)

No.

Hell with high speed. 99.9978% of americans dont need to go from NY to LA via high speed rail.

They need to get from the suburbs and smaller outlying cities to the major city or nearest city.

how about fixing and replacing the rail system we used to have and need? Most 30 minute commutes could be eliminated by having a simple and useable rail system.

High speed is not needed, How about having REAL public transit? you know the stuff that Ford and GM tried so hard to kill at every chance for the past 100 years...

No (3, Insightful)

xzvf (924443) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612119)

While I like the efficiency of trains, the US moved freight traffic to the highways because it created more flexibility in placement of factories and retail outlets. We built our houses and our lifestyle in a manner that took advantage of individual transportation vehicles. We don't have the density or the lifestyle desire to move to a hub and spoke system of fast rail. Air traffic has a better ROI for moving people over large distances in a largely rural nation. For high speed rail to work it has to link urban cores where the flexibility of driving or the speed of flying are compromised. The northeast corridor can support rail inflexibility because it can be faster than flying and as flexible as driving because you are moving between urban cores with solid public transportation. It won't gain critical mass between NYC and Chicago because it is faster and cheaper to fly. It won't work between Atlanta and Birmingham because limited pubic transit in those cities make driving more flexible. Unless there is the willingness of the local communities to rezone around transit, invest in dense public transit, increase the cost of flying and decrease the flexibility of driving then high speed rail will only work where it works now. In other words you have to invest in more than the track to make high speed rail work. Effort, money and time have to be spend rebuilding the nation to fit the hub and spoke infrastructure of rail traffic.

Big Gov't (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27611595)

For twelve years, you have been asking: Who is John Galt? This is John Galt speaking. I am the man who loves his life. I am the man who does not sacrifice his love or his values. I am the man who has deprived you of victims and thus has destroyed your world, and if you wish to know why you are perishing-you who dread knowledge-I am the man who will now tell you.' The chief engineer was the only one able to move; he ran to a television set and struggled frantically with its dials. But the screen remained empty; the speaker had not chosen to be seen. Only his voice filled the airways of the country-of the world, thought the chief engineer-sounding as if he were speaking here, in this room, not to a group, but to one man; it was not the tone of addressing a meeting, but the tone of addressing a mind.

"You have heard it said that this is an age of moral crisis. You have said it yourself, half in fear, half in hope that the words had no meaning. You have cried that man's sins are destroying the world and you have cursed human nature for its unwillingness to practice the virtues you demanded. Since virtue, to you, consists of sacrifice, you have demanded more sacrifices at every successive disaster. In the name of a return to morality, you have sacrificed all those evils which you held as the cause of your plight. You have sacrificed justice to mercy. You have sacrificed independence to unity. You have sacrificed reason to faith. You have sacrificed wealth to need. You have sacrificed self-esteem to self-denial. You have sacrificed happiness to duty.

"You have destroyed all that which you held to be evil and achieved all that which you held to be good. Why, then, do you shrink in horror from the sight of the world around you? That world is not the product of your sins, it is the product and the image of your virtues. It is your moral ideal brought into reality in its full and final perfection. You have fought for it, you have dreamed of it, and you have wished it, and I-I am the man who has granted you your wish.

"Your ideal had an implacable enemy, which your code of morality was designed to destroy. I have withdrawn that enemy. I have taken it out of your way and out of your reach. I have removed the source of all those evils you were sacrificing one by one. I have ended your battle. I have stopped your motor. I have deprived your world of man's mind.

"Men do not live by the mind, you say? I have withdrawn those who do. The mind is impotent, you say? I have withdrawn those whose mind isn't. There are values higher than the mind, you say? I have withdrawn those for whom there aren't.

"While you were dragging to your sacrificial altars the men of justice, of independence, of reason, of wealth, of self-esteem-I beat you to it, I reached them first. I told them the nature of the game you were playing and the nature of that moral code of yours, which they had been too innocently generous to grasp. I showed them the way to live by another morality-mine. It is mine that they chose to follow.

"All the men who have vanished, the men you hated, yet dreaded to lose, it is I who have taken them away from you. Do not attempt to find us. We do not choose to be found. Do not cry that it is our duty to serve you. We do not recognize such duty. Do not cry that you need us. We do not consider need a claim. Do not cry that you own us. You don't. Do not beg us to return. We are on strike, we, the men of the mind.

"We are on strike against self-immolation. We are on strike against the creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. We are on strike against the dogma that the pursuit of one's happiness is evil. We are on strike against the doctrine that life is guilt.

"There is a difference between our strike and all those you've practiced for centuries: our strike consists, not of making demands, but of granting them. We are evil, according to your morality. We have chosen not to harm you any longer. We are useless, according to your economics. We have chosen not to exploit you any longer. We are dangerous and to be shackled, according to your politics. We have chosen not to endanger you, nor to wear the shackles any longer. We are only an illusion, according to your philosophy. We have chosen not to blind you any longer and have left you free to face reality-the reality you wanted, the world as you see it now, a world without mind.

"We have granted you everything you demanded of us, we who had always been the givers, but have only now understood it. We have no demands to present to you, no terms to bargain about, no compromise to reach. You have nothing to offer us. We do not need you.

"Are you now crying: No, this was not what you wanted? A mindless world of ruins was not your goal? You did not want us to leave you? You moral cannibals, I know that you've always known what it was that you wanted. But your game is up, because now we know it, too.

"Through centuries of scourges and disasters, brought about by your code of morality, you have cried that your code had been broken, that the scourges were punishment for breaking it, that men were too weak and too selfish to spill all the blood it required. You damned man, you damned existence, you damned this earth, but never dared to question your code. Your victims took the blame and struggled on, with your curses as reward for their martyrdom-while you went on crying that your code was noble, but human nature was not good enough to practice it. And no one rose to ask the question: Good?-by what standard?

"You wanted to know John Galt's identity. I am the man who has asked that question.

"Yes, this is an age of moral crisis. Yes, you are bearing punishment for your evil. But it is not man who is now on trial and it is not human nature that will take the blame. It is your moral code that's through, this time. Your moral code has reached its climax, the blind alley at the end of its course. And if you wish to go on living, what you now need is not to return to morality-you who have never known any-but to discover it.

"You have heard no concepts of morality but the mystical or the social. You have been taught that morality is a code of behavior imposed on you by whim, the whim of a supernatural power or the whim of society, to serve God's purpose or your neighbor's welfare, to please an authority beyond the grave or else next door-but not to serve your life or pleasure. Your pleasure, you have been taught, is to be found in immorality, your interests would best be served by evil, and any moral code must be designed not for you, but against you, not to further your life, but to drain it.

"For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors-between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it.

"Both sides agreed that morality demands the surrender of your self-interest and of your mind, that the moral and the practical are opposites, that morality is not the province of reason, but the province of faith and force. Both sides agreed that no rational morality is possible, that there is no right or wrong in reason-that in reason there's no reason to be moral.

"Whatever else they fought about, it was against man's mind that all your moralists have stood united. It was man's mind that all their schemes and systems were intended to despoil and destroy. Now choose to perish or to learn that the anti-mind is the anti-life.

"Man's mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive, he must act, and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without a knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch-or build a cyclotron-without a knowledge of his aim and of the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think.

"But to think is an act of choice. The key to what you so recklessly call 'human nature,' the open secret you live with, yet dread to name, is the fact that man is a being of volitional consciousness. Reason does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the connections of logic are not made by instinct. The function of your stomach, lungs or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is not. In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to think or to evade that effort. But you are not free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival-so that for you, who are a human being, the question 'to be or not to be' is the question 'to' think or not to think.'

"A being of volitional consciousness has no automatic course of behavior. He needs a code of values to guide his actions. 'Value' is that which one acts to gain and keep, 'virtue' is the action by which one gains and keeps it. 'Value' presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? 'Value' presupposes a standard, a purpose and the necessity of action in the face of an alternative. Where there are no alternatives, no values are possible.

"There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence-and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not; it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and-self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it does; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.

"A plant must feed itself in order to live; the sunlight, the water, the chemicals it needs are the values its nature has set it to pursue; its life is the standard of value directing its actions. But a plant has no choice of action; there are alternatives in the conditions it encounters, but there is no alternative in its function: it acts automatically to further its life, it cannot act for its own destruction.

"An animal is equipped for sustaining its life; its senses provide it with an automatic code of action, an automatic knowledge of what is good for it or evil. It has no power to extend its knowledge or to evade it. In conditions where its knowledge proves inadequate, it dies. But so long as it lives, it acts on its knowledge, with automatic safety and no power of choice, it is unable to ignore its own good, unable to decide to choose the evil and act as its own destroyer.

"Man has no automatic code of survival. His particular distinction from all other living species is the necessity to act in the face of alternatives by means of volitional choice. He has no automatic knowledge of what is good for him or evil, what values his life depends on, what course of action it requires. Are you prattling about an instinct of self-preservation? An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess. An 'instinct' is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man's desire to live is not automatic: your secret evil today is that that is the desire you do not hold. Your fear of death is not a love of life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it. Man must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking, which nature will not force him t9 perform. Man has the power to act as his own destroyer-and that is the way he has acted through most of his history.

"A living entity that regarded its means of survival as evil, would not survive. A plant that struggled to mangle its roots, a bird that fought to break its wings would not remain for long in the existence they affronted. But the history of man has been a struggle to deny and to destroy his mind.

"Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice-and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be man-by choice; he has to hold his life as a value-by choice: he has to learn to sustain it-by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues-by choice.

"A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality.

"Whoever you are, you who are hearing me now, I am speaking to whatever living remnant is left uncorrupted within you, to the remnant of the human, to your mind, and I say: There is a morality of reason, a morality proper to man, and Man's Life is its standard of value.

"All that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is the evil.

"Man's life, as required by his nature, is not the life of a mindless brute, of a looting thug or a mooching mystic, but the life of a thinking being-not life by means of force or fraud, but life by means of achievement-not survival at any price, since there's only one price that pays for man's survival: reason.

"Man's life is the standard of morality, but your own life is its purpose. If existence on earth is your goal, you must choose your actions and values by the standard of that which is proper to man-for the purpose of preserving, fulfilling and enjoying the irreplaceable value which is your life.

"Since life requires a specific course of action, any other course will destroy it. A being who does not hold his own life as the motive and goal of his actions, is acting on the motive and standard of death. Such a being is a metaphysical monstrosity, struggling to oppose, negate and contradict the fact of his own existence, running blindly amuck on a trail of destruction, capable of nothing but pain.

"Happiness is the successful state of life, pain is an agent of death. Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one's values. A morality that dares to tell you to find happiness in the renunciation of your happiness-to value the failure of your values-is an insolent negation of morality. A doctrine that gives you, as an ideal, the role of a sacrificial animal seeking slaughter on the altars of others, is giving you death as your standard. By the grace of reality and the nature of life, man-every man-is an end in himself, he exists for his own sake, and the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose.

"But neither life nor happiness can be achieved by the pursuit of irrational whims. Just as man is free to attempt to survive in any random manner, but will perish unless he lives as his nature requires, so he is free to seek his happiness in any mindless fraud, but the torture of frustration is all he will find, unless he seeks the happiness proper to man. The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.

"Sweep aside those parasites of subsidized classrooms, who live on the profits of the mind of others and proclaim that man needs no morality, no values, no code of behavior. They, who pose as scientists and claim that man is only an animal, do not grant him inclusion in the law of existence they have granted to the lowest of insects. They recognize that every living species has a way of survival demanded by its nature, they do not claim that a fish can live out of water or that a dog can live without its sense of smell-but man, they claim, the most complex of beings, man can survive in any way whatever, man has no identity, no nature, and there's no practical reason why he cannot live with his means of survival destroyed, with his mind throttled and placed at the disposal of any orders they might care to issue.

"Sweep aside those hatred-eaten mystics, who pose as friends of humanity and preach that the highest virtue man can practice is to hold his own life as of no value. Do they tell you that the purpose of morality is to curb man's instinct of self-preservation? It is for the purpose of self-preservation that man needs a code of morality. The only man who desires to be moral is the man who desires to live.

"No, you do not have to live; it is your basic act of choice; but if you choose to live,. you must live as a man-by the work and the judgment of your mind.

"No, you do not have to live as a man; it is an act of moral choice. But you cannot live as anything else-and the alternative is that state of living death which you now see within you and around you, the state of a thing unfit for existence, no longer human and less than animal, a thing that knows nothing but pain and drags itself through its span of years in the agony of unthinking self-destruction.

"No, you do not have to think; it is an act of moral choice. But someone had to think to keep you alive; if you choose to default, you default on existence and you pass the deficit to some moral man, expecting him to sacrifice his good for the sake of letting you survive by your evil.

"No, you do not have to be a man; but today those who are, are not there any longer. I have removed your means of survival-your victims.

"If you wish to know how I have done it and what I told them to make them quit, you are hearing it now. I told them, in essence, the statement I am making tonight. They were men who had lived by my code, but had not known how great a virtue it represented. I made them see it. I brought them, not a re-evaluation, but only an identification of their values.

"We, the men of the mind, are now on strike against you in the name of a single axiom, which is the root of our moral code, just as the root of yours is the wish to escape it: the axiom that existence exists.

"Existence exists-and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.

"If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness.

"Whatever the degree of your knowledge, these two-existence and consciousness-are axioms you cannot escape, these two are the irreducible primaries implied in any action you undertake, in any part of your knowledge and in its sum, from the first ray of light you perceive at the start of your life to the widest erudition you might acquire at its end. Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that it exists and that you know it.

"To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man who was-no matter what his errors-the greatest of your philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification.

"Whatever you choose to consider, be it an object, an attribute or an action, the law of identity remains the same. A leaf cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be all red and all green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A. Or, if you wish it stated in simpler language: You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

"Are you seeking to know what is wrong with the world? All the disasters that have wrecked your world, came from your leaders' attempt to evade the fact that A is A. All the secret evil you dread to face within you and all the pain you have ever endured, came from your own attempt to evade the fact that A is A. The purpose of those who taught you to evade it, was to make you forget that Man is Man.

"Man cannot survive except by gaining knowledge, and reason is his only means to gain it. Reason is the faculty that perceives, identifies and integrates the material provided by his senses. The task of his senses is to give him the evidence of existence, but the task of identifying it belongs to his reason, his senses tell him only that something is, but what it is must be learned by his mind.

"All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one's thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one's mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.

"Reality is that which exists; the unreal does not exist; the unreal is merely that negation of existence which is the content of a human consciousness when it attempts to abandon reason. Truth is the recognition of reality; reason, man's only means of knowledge, is his only standard of truth.

"The most depraved sentence you can now utter is to ask: Whose reason? The answer is: Yours. No matter how vast your knowledge or how modest, it is your own mind that has to acquire it. It is only with your own knowledge that you can deal. It is only your own knowledge that you can claim to possess or ask others to consider. Your mind is your only judge of truth-and if others dissent from your verdict, reality is the court of final appeal. Nothing but a man's mind can perform that complex, delicate, crucial process of identification which is thinking. Nothing can direct the process but his own judgment. Nothing can direct his judgment but his moral integrity.

"You who speak of a 'moral instinct' as if it were some separate endowment opposed to reason-man's reason is his moral faculty. A process of reason is a process of constant choice in answer to the question: True or False?-Right or Wrong? Is a seed to be planted in soil in order to grow-right or wrong? Is a man's wound to be disinfected in order to save his life-right or wrong? Does the nature of atmospheric electricity permit it to be converted into kinetic power-right or wrong? It is the answers to such questions that gave you everything you have-and the answers came from a man's mind, a mind of intransigent devotion to that which is right.

"A rational process is a moral process. You may make an error at any step of it, with nothing to protect you but your own severity, or you may try to cheat, to fake the evidence and evade the effort of the quest-but if devotion to truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.

"That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call 'free will' is your mind's freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom, the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and your character.

"Thinking is man's only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one's consciousness, the refusal to think-not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment-on the unstated premise that a thing will not exist if only you refuse to identify it, that A will not be A so long as you do not pronounce the verdict 'It is.' Non-thinking is an act of annihilation, a wish to negate existence, an attempt to wipe out reality. But existence exists; reality is not to be wiped out, it will merely wipe out the wiper. By refusing to say 'It is,' you are refusing to say 'I am.' By suspending your judgment, you are negating your person. When a man declares: 'Who am I to know?'-he is declaring: 'Who am I to live?'

"This, in every hour and every issue, is your basic moral choice: thinking or non-thinking, existence or non-existence, A or non-A, entity or zero.

"To the extent to which a man is rational, life is the premise directing his actions. To the extent to which he is irrational, the premise directing his actions is death.

"You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island-it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today-and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it.

"If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man's only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a 'moral commandment' is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.

"My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists-and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason-Purpose-Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge-Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve-Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man's virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.

"Rationality is the recognition of the fact that existence exists, that nothing can alter the truth and nothing can take precedence over that act of perceiving it, which is thinking-that the mind is one's only judge of values and one's only guide of action-that reason is an absolute that permits no compromise-that a concession to the irrational invalidates one's consciousness and turns it from the task of perceiving to the task of faking reality-that the alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short-circuit destroying the mind-that the acceptance of a mystical invention is a wish for the annihilation of existence and, properly, annihilates one's consciousness.

"Independence is the recognition of the fact that yours is the responsibility of judgment and nothing can help you escape it-that no substitute can do your thinking, as no pinch-hitter can live your life-that the vilest form of self-abasement and self-destruction is the subordination of your mind to the mind of another, the acceptance of an authority over your brain, the acceptance of his assertions as facts, his say-so as truth, his edicts as middle-man between your consciousness and your existence.

"Integrity is the recognition of the fact that you cannot fake your consciousness, just as honesty is the recognition of the fact that you cannot fake existence-that man is an indivisible entity, an integrated unit of two attributes: of matter and consciousness, and that he may permit no breach between body and mind, between action and thought, between his life and his convictions-that, like a judge impervious to public opinion, he may not sacrifice his convictions to the wishes of others, be it the whole of mankind shouting pleas or threats against him-that courage and confidence are practical necessities, that courage is the practical form of being true to existence, of being true to one's own consciousness.

"Honesty is the recognition of the fact that the unreal is unreal and can have no value, that neither love nor fame nor cash is a value if obtained by fraud-that an attempt to gain a value by deceiving the mind of others is an act of raising your victims to a position higher than reality, where you become a pawn of their blindness, a slave of their non-thinking and their evasions, while their intelligence, their rationality, their perceptiveness become the enemies you have to dread and flee-that you do not care to live as a dependent, least of all a dependent on the stupidity of others, or as a fool whose source of values is the fools he succeeds in fooling-that honesty is not a social duty, not a sacrifice for the sake of others, but the most profoundly selfish virtue man can practice: his refusal to sacrifice the reality of his own existence to the deluded consciousness of others.

"Justice is the recognition of the fact that you cannot fake the character of men as you cannot fake the character of nature, that you must judge all men as conscientiously as you judge inanimate objects, with the same respect for truth, with the same incorruptible vision, by as pure and as rational a process of identification-that every man must be judged for what he is and treated accordingly, that just as you do not pay a higher price for a rusty chunk of scrap than for a piece of shining metal, so you do not value a totter above a hero-that your moral appraisal is the coin paying men for their virtues or vices, and this payment demands of you as scrupulous an honor as you bring to financial transactions-that to withhold your contempt from men's vices is an act of moral counterfeiting, and to withhold your admiration from their virtues is an act of moral embezzlement-that to place any other concern higher than justice is to devaluate your moral currency and defraud the good in favor of the evil, since only the good can lose by a default of justice and only the evil can profit-and that the bottom of the pit at the end of that road, the act of moral bankruptcy, is to punish men for their virtues and reward them for their vices, that that is the collapse to full depravity, the Black Mass of the worship of death, the dedication of your consciousness to the destruction of existence.

"Productiveness is your acceptance of morality, your recognition of the fact that you choose to live-that productive work is the process by which man's consciousness controls his existence, a constant process of acquiring knowledge and shaping matter to fit one's purpose, of translating an idea into physical form, of remaking the earth in the image of one's values-that all work is creative work if done by a thinking mind, and no work is creative if done by a blank who repeats in uncritical stupor a routine he has learned from others- that your work is yours to choose, and the choice is as wide as your mind, that nothing more is possible to you and nothing less is human-that to cheat your way into a job bigger than your mind can handle is to become a fear-corroded ape on borrowed motions and borrowed time, and to settle down into a job that requires less than your mind's full capacity is to cut your motor and sentence yourself to another kind of motion: decay-that your work is the process of achieving your values, and to lose your ambition for values is to lose your ambition to live-that your body is a machine, but your mind is its driver, and you must drive as far as your mind will take you, with achievement as the goal of your road-that the man who has no purpose is a machine that coasts downhill at the mercy of any boulder to crash in the first chance ditch, that the man who stifles his mind is a stalled machine slowly going to rust, that the man who lets a leader prescribe his course is a wreck being towed to the scrap heap, and the man who makes another man his goal is a hitchhiker no driver should ever pick up-that your work is the purpose of your life, and you must speed past any killer who assumes the right to stop you, that any value you might find outside your work, any other loyalty or love, can be only travelers you choose to share your journey and must be travelers going on their own power in the same direction.

"Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own highest value and, like all of man's values, it has to be earned-that of any achievements open to you, the one that makes all others possible is the creation of your own character-that your character, your actions, your desires, your emotions are the products of the premises held by your mind-that as man must produce the physical values he needs to sustain his life, so he must acquire the values of character that make his life worth sustaining-that as man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soul-that to live requires a sense of self-value, but man, who has no automatic values, has no automatic sense of self-esteem and must earn it by shaping his soul in the image of his moral ideal, in the image of Man, the rational being he is born able to create, but must create by choice-that the first precondition of self-esteem is that radiant selfishness of soul which desires the best in all things, in values of matter and spirit, a soul that seeks above all else to achieve its own moral perfection, valuing nothing higher than itself-and that the proof of an achieved self-esteem is your soul's shudder of contempt and rebellion against the role of a sacrificial animal, against the vile impertinence of any creed that proposes to immolate the irreplaceable value which is your consciousness and the incomparable glory which is your existence to the blind evasions and the stagnant decay of others.

"Are you beginning to see who is John Galt? I am the man who has earned the thing you did not fight for, the thing you have renounced, betrayed, corrupted, yet were unable fully to destroy and are now hiding as your guilty secret, spending your life in apologies to every professional cannibal, lest it be discovered that somewhere within you, you still long to say what I am now saying to the hearing of the whole of mankind: I am proud of my own value and of the fact that I wish to live.

"This wish-which you share, yet submerge as an evil-is the only remnant of the good within you, but it is a wish one must learn to deserve. His own happiness is man's only moral purpose, but only his own virtue can achieve it. Virtue is not an end in itself. Virtue is not its own reward or sacrificial fodder for the reward of evil. Life is the reward of virtue-and happiness is the goal and the reward of life.

"Just as your body has two fundamental sensations, pleasure and pain, as signs of its welfare or injury, as a barometer of its basic alternative, life or death, so your consciousness has two fundamental emotions, joy and suffering, in answer to the same alternative. Your emotions are estimates of that which furthers your life or threatens it, lightning calculators giving you a sum of your profit or loss. You have no choice about your capacity to feel that something is good for you or evil, but what you will consider good or evil, what will give you joy or pain, what you will love or hate, desire or fear, depends on your standard of value. Emotions are inherent in your nature, but their content is dictated by your mind. Your emotional capacity is an empty motor, and your values are the fuel with which your mind fills it. If you choose a mix of contradictions, it will clog your motor, corrode your transmission and wreck you on your first attempt to move with a machine which you, the driver, have corrupted.

"If you hold the irrational as your standard of value and the impossible as your concept of the good, if you long for rewards you have not earned, for a fortune, or a love you don't deserve, for a loophole in the law of causality, for an A that becomes non-A at your whim, if you desire the opposite of existence-you will reach it. Do not cry, when you reach it, that life is frustration and that happiness is impossible to man; check your fuel: it brought you where you wanted to go.

"Happiness is not to be achieved at the command of emotional whims. Happiness is not the satisfaction of whatever irrational wishes you might blindly attempt to indulge. Happiness is a state of non-contradictory joy-a joy without penalty or guilt, a joy that does not clash with any of your values and does not work for your own destruction, not the joy of escaping from your mind, but of using your mind's fullest power, not the joy of faking reality, but of achieving values that are real, not the joy of a drunkard, but of a producer. Happiness is possible only to a rational man, the man who desires nothing but rational goals, seeks nothing but rational values and finds his joy in nothing but rational actions.

"Just as I support my life, neither by robbery nor alms, but by my own effort, so I do not seek to derive my happiness from the injury or the favor of others, but earn it by my own achievement. Just as I do not consider the pleasure of others as the goal of my life, so I do not consider my pleasure as the goal of the lives of others. Just as there are no contradictions in my values and no conflicts among my desires-so there are no victims and no conflicts of interest among rational men, men who do not desire the unearned and do not view one another with a cannibal's lust, men who neither make sacrifice nor accept them.

"The symbol of all relationships among such men, the moral symbol of respect for human beings, is the trader. We, who live by values, not by loot, are traders, both in matter and in spirit. A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved. A trader does not ask to be paid for his failures, nor does he ask to be loved for his flaws. A trader does not squander his body as fodder or his soul as alms. Just as he does not give his work except in trade for material values, so he does not give the values of his spirit-his love, his friendship, his esteem-except in payment and in trade for human virtues, in payment for his own selfish pleasure, which he receives from men he can respect. The mystic parasites who have, throughout the ages, reviled the traders and held them in contempt, while honoring the beggars and the looters, have known the secret motive of their sneers: a trader is the entity they dread-a man of justice.

"Do you ask what moral obligation I owe to my fellow men? None-except the obligation I owe to myself, to material objects and to all of existence: rationality. I deal with men as my nature and their demands: by means of reason. I seek or desire nothing from them except such relations as they care to enter of their own voluntary choice. It is only with their mind that I can deal and only for my own self-interest, when they see that my interest coincides with theirs. When they don't, I enter no relationship; I let dissenters go their way and I do not swerve from mine. I win by means of nothing but logic and I surrender to nothing but logic. I do not surrender my reason or deal with men who surrender theirs. I have nothing to gain from fools or cowards; I have no benefits to seek from human vices: from stupidity, dishonesty or fear. The only value men can offer me is the work of their mind. When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit.

"Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate-do you hear me? no man may start-the use of physical force against others.

"To interpose the threat of physical destruction between a man and his perception of reality, is to negate and paralyze his means of survival; to force-him to act against his own judgment, is like forcing him to act against his own sight. Whoever, to whatever purpose or extent, initiates the use of force, is a killer acting on the premise of death in a manner wider than murder: the premise of destroying man's capacity to live.

"Do not open your mouth to tell me that your mind has convinced you of your right to force my mind. Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins. When you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define thereby your own character and can no longer claim the sanction of reason-as no advocate of contradictions can claim it. There can be no 'right' to destroy the source of rights, the only means of judging right and wrong: the mind.

"To force a man to drop his own mind and to accept your will as a substitute, with a gun in place of a syllogism, with terror in place of proof, and death as the final argument-is to attempt to exist in defiance of reality. Reality demands of man that he act for his own rational interest; your gun demands of him that he act against it. Reality threatens man with death if he does not act on his rational judgment: you threaten him with death if he does. You place him into a world where the price of his life is the surrender of all the virtues required by life-and death by a process of gradual destruction is all that you and your system will achieve, when death is made to be the ruling power, the winning argument in a society of men.

"Be it a highwayman who confronts a traveler with the ultimatum: 'Your money or your life,' or a politician who confronts a country with the ultimatum: 'Your children's education or your life,' the meaning of that ultimatum is: 'Your mind or your life'-and neither is possible to man without the other.

"If there are degrees of evil, it is hard to say who is the more contemptible: the brute who assumes the right to force the mind of others or the moral degenerate who grants to others the right to force his mind. That is the moral absolute one does not leave open to debate. I do not grant the terms of reason to men who propose to deprive me of reason. I do not enter discussions with neighbors who think they can forbid me to think. I do not place my moral sanction upon a murderer's wish to kill me. When a man attempts to deal with me by force, I answer him-by force.

"It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use. No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had the right to choose: his own. He uses force to seize a value; I use it only to destroy destruction. A holdup man seeks to gain wealth by killing me; I do not grow richer by killing a holdup man. I seek no values by means of evil, nor do I surrender my values to evil.

"In the name of all the producers who had kept you alive and received your death ultimatums in payment, I now answer you with a single ultimatum of our own: Our work or your guns. You can choose either; you can't have both. We do not initiate the use of force against others or submit to force at their hands. If you desire ever again to live in an industrial society, it Will be on our moral terms. Our terms and our motive power are the antithesis of yours. You have been using fear as your weapon and have been bringing death to man as his punishment for rejecting your morality. We offer him life as his reward for accepting ours.

"You who are worshippers of the zero-you have never discovered that achieving life is not the equivalent of avoiding death. Joy is not 'the absence of pain,' intelligence is not 'the absence of stupidity,' light is not 'the absence of darkness,' an entity is not 'the absence of a nonentity.' Building is not done by abstaining from demolition; centuries of sitting and waiting in such abstinence will not raise one single girder for you to abstain from demolishing-and now you can no longer say to me, the builder: 'Produce, and feed us in exchange for our not destroying your production.' I am answering in the name of all your victims: Perish with and in your own void. Existence is not a negation of negatives. Evil, not value, is an absence and a negation, evil is impotent and has no power but that which we let it extort from us. Perish, because we have learned that a zero cannot hold a mortgage over life.

"You seek escape from pain. We seek the achievement of happiness. You exist for the sake of avoiding punishment. We exist for the sake of earning rewards. Threats will not make us function; fear is not our incentive. It is not death that we wish to avoid, but life that we wish to live.

"You, who have lost the concept of the difference, you who claim that fear and joy are incentives of equal power-and secretly add that fear is the more 'practical'-you do not wish to live, and only fear of death still holds you to the existence you have damned. You dart in panic through the trap of your days, looking for the exit you have closed, running from a pursuer you dare not name to a terror you dare not acknowledge, and the greater your terror the greater your dread of the only act that could save you: thinking. The purpose of your struggle is not to know, not to grasp or name or hear the thing. I shall now state to your hearing: that yours is the Morality of Death.

"Death is the standard of your values, death is your chosen goal, and you have to keep running, since there is no escape from the pursuer who is out to destroy you or from the knowledge that that pursuer is yourself. Stop running, for once-there is no place to run-stand naked, as you dread to stand, but as I see you, and take a look at what you dared to call a moral code.

"Damnation is the start of your morality, destruction is its purpose, means and end. Your code begins by damning man as evil, then demands that he practice a good which it defines as impossible for him to practice. It demands, as his first proof of virtue, that he accept his own depravity without proof. It demands that he start, not with a standard of value, but with a standard of evil, which is himself, by means of which he is then to define the good: the good is that which he is not.

"It does not matter who then becomes the profiteer on his renounced glory and tormented soul, a mystic God with some incomprehensible design or any passer-by whose rotting sores are held as some inexplicable claim upon him-it does not matter, the good is not for him to understand, his duty is to crawl through years of penance, atoning for the guilt of his existence to any stray collector of unintelligible debts, his only concept of a value is a zero: the good is that which is non-man.

"The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin.

"A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man's sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man's nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code.

"Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a 'tendency' to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free.

"What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge-he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil-he became a mortal being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor-he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire-he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness; joy-all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man's fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was-that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love-he was not man.

"Man's fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he's man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives.

"They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man. No, they say, they do not preach that man is evil, the evil is only that alien object: his body. No, they say, they do not wish to kill him, they only wish to make him lose his body. They seek to help him, they say, against his pain-and they point at the torture rack to which they've tied him, the rack with two wheels that pull him in opposite directions, the rack of the doctrine that splits his soul and body.

"They have cut man in two, setting one half against the other. They have taught him that his body and his consciousness are two enemies engaged in deadly conflict, two antagonists of opposite natures, contradictory claims, incompatible needs, that to benefit one is to injure the other, that his soul belongs to a supernatural realm, but his body is an evil prison holding it in bondage to this earth-and that the good is to defeat his body, to undermine it by years of patient struggle, digging his way to that gorgeous jail-break which leads into the freedom of the grave.

"They have taught man that he is a hopeless misfit made of two elements, both symbols of death. A body without a soul is a corpse, a soul without a body is a ghost-yet such is their image of man's nature: the battleground of a struggle between a corpse and a ghost, a corpse endowed with some evil volition of its own and a ghost endowed with the knowledge that everything known to man is nonexistent, that only the unknowable exists.

"Do you observe what human faculty that' doctrine was designed to ignore? It was man's mind that had to be negated in order to make him fall apart. Once he surrendered reason, he was left at the mercy of two monsters whom he could not fathom or control: of a body moved by unaccountable instincts and of a soul moved by mystic revelations-he was left as the passively ravaged victim of a battle between a robot and a dictaphone.

"And as he now crawls through the wreckage, groping blindly for a way to live, your teachers offer him the help of a morality that proclaims that he'll find no solution and must seek no fulfillment on earth. Real existence, they tell him, is that which he cannot perceive, true consciousness is the faculty of perceiving the non-existent-and if he is unable to understand it, that is the proof that his existence is evil and his consciousness impotent.

"As products of the split between man's soul and body, there are two kinds of teachers of the Morality of Death: the mystics of spirit and the mystics of muscle, whom you call the spiritualists and the materialists, those who believe in consciousness without existence and those who believe in existence without consciousness. Both demand the surrender of your mind, one to their revelation, the other to their reflexes. No matter how loudly they posture in the roles of irreconcilable antagonists, their moral codes are alike, and so are their aims: in matter-the enslavement of man's body, in spirit-the destruction of his mind.

"The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man's power to conceive-a definition that invalidates man's consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. The good, say the mystics of muscle, is Society-a thing which they define as an organism that possesses no physical form, a super-being embodied in no one in particular and everyone in general except yourself. Man's mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. Man's mind, say the mystics of muscle, must be subordinated to the will of Society. Man's standard of value say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure 0f God, whose standards are beyond man's power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith. Man's standard of value, say the mystics of muscle, is the pleasure of Society, whose standards are beyond man's right of judgment and must be obeyed as a primary absolute. The purpose of man's life, say both, is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. His reward, say the mystics of spirit, will be given to him beyond the grave. His reward, say the mystics of muscle, will be given on earth-to his great-grandchildren.

"Selfishness-say both-is man's evil. Man's good-say both-is to give up his personal desires, to deny himself, renounce himself, surrender; man's good is to negate the life he lives. Sacrifice-cry both-is the essence of morality, the highest virtue within man's reach.

"Whoever is now within reach of my voice, whoever is man the victim, not man the killer, I am speaking at the deathbed of your mind, at the brink of that darkness in which you're drowning, and if there still remains within you the power to struggle to hold on to those fading sparks which had been yourself-use it now. The word that has destroyed you is 'sacrifice.' Use the last of your strength to understand its meaning. You're still alive. You have a chance.

"'Sacrifice' does not mean the rejection of the worthless, but of the precious. 'Sacrifice' does not mean the rejection of the evil for the sake of the good, but of the good for the sake of the evil. 'Sacrifice' is the surrender of that which you value in favor of that which you don't.

"If you exchange a penny for a dollar, it is not a sacrifice; if you exchange a dollar for a penny, it is. If you achieve the career you wanted, after years of struggle, it is not a sacrifice; if you then renounce it for the sake of a rival, it is. If you own a bottle of milk and gave it to your starving child, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to your neighbor's child and let your own die, it is.

"If you give money to help a friend, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to a worthless stranger, it is. If you give your friend a sum you can afford, it is not a sacrifice; if you give him money at the cost of your own discomfort, it is only a partial virtue, according to this sort of moral standard; if you give him money at the cost of disaster to yourself that is the virtue of sacrifice in full.

"If you renounce all personal desire and dedicate your life to those you love, you do not achieve full virtue: you still retain a value of your own, which is your love. If you devote your life to random strangers, it is an act of greater virtue. If you devote your life to serving men you hate-that is the greatest of the virtues you can practice.

"A sacrifice is the surrender of a value. Full sacrifice is full surrender of all values. If you wish to achieve full virtue, you must seek no gratitude in return for your sacrifice, no praise, no love, no admiration, no self-esteem, not even the pride of being virtuous; the faintest trace of any gain dilutes your virtue. If you pursue a course of action that does not taint your life by any joy, that brings you no value in matter, no value in spirit, no gain, no profit, no reward-if you achieve this state of total zero, you have achieved the ideal of moral perfection.

"You are told that moral perfection is impossible to man-and, by this standard, it is. You cannot achieve it so long as you live, but the value of your life and of your person is gauged by how closely you succeed in approaching that ideal zero which is death.

"If you start, however, as a passionless blank, as a vegetable seeking to be eaten, with no values to reject and no wishes to renounce, you will not win the crown of sacrifice. It is not a sacrifice to renounce the unwanted. It is not a sacrifice. It is not a sacrifice to give your life for others, if death is your personal desire. To achieve the virtue of sacrifice, you must want to live, you must love it, you must burn with passion for this earth and for all the splendor it can give you-you must feel the twist of every knife as it slashes your desires away from your reach and drains your love out of your body, It is not mere death that the morality of sacrifice holds out to you as an ideal, but death by slow torture.

"Do not remind me that it pertains only to this life on earth. I am concerned with no other. Neither are you.

"If you wish to save the last of your dignity, do not call your best actions a 'sacrifice': that term brands you as immoral. If a mother buys food for her hungry child rather than a hat for herself, it is not a sacrifice: she values the child higher than the hat; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of mother whose higher value is the hat, who would prefer her child to starve and feeds him only from a sense of duty. If a man dies fighting for his own freedom, it is not a sacrifice: he is not willing to live as a slave; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of man who's willing. If a man refuses to sell his convictions, it is not a sacrifice, unless he is the sort of man who has no convictions.

"Sacrifice could be proper only for those who have nothing to sacrifice-no values, no standards, no judgment-those whose desires are irrational whims, blindly conceived and lightly surrendered. For a man of moral stature, whose desires are born of rational values, sacrifice is the surrender of the right to the wrong, of the good to the evil.

"The creed of sacrifice is a morality for the immoral-a morality that declares its own bankruptcy by confessing that it can't impart to men any personal stake in virtues or value, and that their souls are sewers of depravity, which they must be taught to sacrifice. By his own confession, it is impotent to teach men to be good and can only subject them to constant punishment.

"Are you thinking, in some foggy stupor, that it's only material values that your morality requires you to sacrifice? And what do you think are material values? Matter has no value except as a means for the satisfaction of human desires. Matter is only a tool of human values. To what service are you asked to give the material tools your virtue has produced? To the service of that which you regard as evil: to a principle you do not share, to a person you do not respect, to the achievement of a purpose opposed to your own-else your gift is not a sacrifice.

"Your morality tells you to renounce the material world and to divorce your values from matter. A man whose values are given no expression in material form, whose existence is unrelated to his ideals, whose actions contradict his convictions, is a cheap little hypocrite-yet that is the man who obeys your morality and divorces his values from matter. The man who loves one woman, but sleeps with another-the man who admires the talent of a worker, but hires another-the man who considers one cause to be just, but donates his money to the support of another-the man who holds high standards of craftsmanship, but devotes his effort to the production of trash-these are the men who have renounced matter, the men who believe that the values of their spirit cannot be brought into material reality.

"Do you say it is the spirit that such men have renounced? Yes, of course. You cannot have one without the other. You are an indivisible entity of matter and consciousness. Renounce your consciousness and you become a brute. Renounce your body and you become a fake. Renounce the material world and you surrender it to evil.

"And that is precisely the goal of your morality, the duty that your code demands of you. Give to that which you do not enjoy, serve that which you do not admire, submit to that which you consider evil-surrender the world to the values of others, deny, reject, renounce your self. Your self is your mind; renounce it and you become a chunk of meat ready for any cannibal to swallow.

"It is your mind that they want you to surrender-all those who preach the creed of sacrifice, whatever their tags or their motives, whether they demand it for the sake of your soul or of your body, whether they promise you another life in heaven or a full stomach on this earth. Those who start by saying: 'It is selfish to pursue your own wishes, you must sacrifice them to the wishes of others'-end up by saying: 'It is selfish to uphold your convictions, you must sacrifice them to the convictions of others.

"This much is true: the most selfish of all things is the independent mind that recognizes no authority higher than its own and no value higher than its judgment of truth. You are asked to sacrifice your intellectual integrity, your logic, your reason, your standard of truth-in favor of becoming a prostitute whose standard is the greatest good for the greatest number.

"If you search your code for guidance, for an answer to the question: 'What is the good?'-the only answer you will find is 'The good of others.' The good is whatever others wish, whatever you feel they feel they wish, or whatever you feel they ought to feel. 'The good of others' is a magic formula that transforms anything into gold, a formula to be recited as a guarantee of moral glory and as a fumigator for any action, even the slaughter of a continent. Your standard of virtue is not an object, not an act, not a principle, but an intention. You need no proof, no reasons, no success, you need not achieve in fact the good of others-all you need to know is that your motive was the good of others, not your own. Your only definition of the good is a negation: the good is the 'non-good for me.'

"Your code-which boasts that it upholds eternal, absolute, objective moral values and scorns the conditional, the relative and the subjective-your code hands out, as its version of the absolute, the following rule of moral conduct: If you wish it, it's evil; if others wish it, it's good; if the motive of your action is your welfare, don't do it; if the motive is the welfare of others, then anything goes.

"As this double-jointed, double-standard morality splits you in half, so it splits mankind into two enemy camps: one is you, the other is all the rest of humanity. You are the only outcast who has no right to wish to live. You are the only servant, the rest are the masters, you are the only giver, the rest are the takers, you are the eternal debtor, the rest are the creditors never to be paid off. You must not question their right to your sacrifice, or the nature of their wishes and their needs: their right is conferred upon them by a negative, by the fact that they are 'non-you.'

"For those of you who might ask questions, your code provides a consolation prize and booby-trap: it is for your own happiness, it says, that you must serve the happiness of others, the only way to achieve your joy is to give it up to others, the only way to

Free market will kill it (4, Insightful)

_merlin (160982) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611623)

Nice idea, but it'll never happen. These kinds of projects are only ever successful when a government steps in and does them properly. The process of doing it with "private enterprise" or a "public-private partnership" always kills anything good that could come out of it. Compare the shinkansen in Japan and the TGV in France to the farce that is privatised railways in Australia for a good example.

Re:Free market will kill it (4, Insightful)

dmmiller2k (414630) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611819)

Nice idea, but it'll never happen. These kinds of projects are only ever successful when a government steps in and does them properly.

And given the government's track record with doing things properly, even THAT probably wouldn't work in the US.

Re:Free market will kill it (1)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611989)

Damn I wish I had mod points! ^+1m

Heard of Amtrak? (4, Insightful)

Seakip18 (1106315) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611895)

Amtrak has dragged it's feet on restoring the Sunset line east of New Orleans for over 3 years! Keep in mind that Amtrak now gets $2.6 BILLION [latimes.com] annually.

CSX confirmed that all track repairs had been completed in mid-2006.

Believe me, I'm heading back to Houston from Tallahassee for Mother's Day and I'd love to grab a ride on sunset, but it looks like another airport shake-n-dance. Amtrak has 3 more months to offer a "plan" to restore service...wanna bet that no one ever asks for this plan?

A government controlled-business does not make it some magical, ne'er-do-bad business.

Re:Heard of Amtrak? (2, Informative)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612037)

The sad thing is, the Amtrak fare would likely have been more expensive than flying with a discount airline (e.g. AirTran) anyway.

Re:Free market will kill it (2, Insightful)

gabebear (251933) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611979)

Yeesh, I was hoping I could point to something to say you were wrong, but after looking through everything I can find on Obama's support of high-speed rail it looks like you are right... This is just going to add another $8billion to the money-pit that is Amtrak.

The US really needs a good national transport system, but this isn't it.

Re:Free market will kill it (5, Interesting)

MindKata (957167) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612025)

"Compare the shinkansen in Japan and the TGV in France"

Yes I agree its not exactly as exciting. The Koreans also totally beat it with 350 km/h trains and they already have them working just like Japan etc... This 150MPH train system is years from being a reality. e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_Train_Express [wikipedia.org] This idea could be so much more. Considering the size of America and modern engineering methods, the proposed speeds for this system already fall way below existing trains like the Shinkansen. (I had to look it up, I remember many years ago the so called at the time Bullet Trains were already fast and they are old).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkansen [wikipedia.org]

Surely America can aspire to build something world class rather than average. Other countries are already doing more. America has the knowledge and engineering capabilities, it just fails in the management will to do something impressive and would sooner spend vast sums of money on proping up corrupt banks and their rich directors etc..

I'm disappointed rather than exciting by this news. It could have achieved so much more. In some ways it feels like a lost oppotunity that could so easily have really impressed and create something truely useful.

The man is completely devoid of ideas. (1, Troll)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611629)

Ah, yes. A rail project. Beloved by pork-barrellers at the local level for decades, now brought to the national stage.

Sorry to break it to any Obama fans here, but you clowns elected an empty suit.

-jcr

Re:The man is completely devoid of ideas. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27611659)

Correct analysis.

Pass the hope and share the change.

This project is DOA

Re:The man is completely devoid of ideas. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27611837)

Yeah, watching you guys freak the fuck out so soon after becoming irrelevant has been a wonder to behold.

Re:The man is completely devoid of ideas. (1)

immakiku (777365) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611899)

Would you say "no" to the question? Just because it's got no novelty factor doesn't mean it's not a good idea.

Even an empty suit is better than... (0, Offtopic)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611935)

Sorry to break it to any Obama fans here, but you clowns elected an empty suit.

On the other hand, even an empty suit is better than what we've had for the past eight years.

Re:The man is completely devoid of ideas. (1, Flamebait)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611937)

Ah, yes, anything that involves government spending is a "pork-barrel project". Except when we build highways, subsidize oil companies, and prop up auto manufacturers. Then it's "capitalism".

Infrastructure is such as waste of money.

Re:The man is completely devoid of ideas. (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612045)

anything that involves government spending is a "pork-barrel project".

No, just the things that are beyond the scope of the government's enumerated powers. Oh, and bailing out detroit isn't capitalism, in fact it's quite the opposite.

-jcr

Re:The man is completely devoid of ideas. (1)

chebucto (992517) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611977)

I think the important thing is the fact that something will actually be done on this file. The idea of high-speed rail in the US is about as novel as posting flamebait to slashdot.

Re:The man is completely devoid of ideas. (3, Insightful)

glop (181086) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612033)

Well,
I don't know why you need to be so condescending but I can tell you that the railways in the US are pretty ridiculous in terms of speed and improving them could bring big benefits.
For instance, the ACELA between Boston and NY is very slow (more than 3 hours to cover half the distance that the TGV covers in less than 3 hours).
Such a train uses half the energy of a plane, can arrive in the center of the city etc.

The Japanese Shinkansen is even better in some respect as it runs on schedules that are very intense.

Also, you don't need to change everything to achieve that, just some money and political will. The ACELA express is inherently slower (150MPH max instead of 200MPH and more) but that's not the biggest problem. They need to adapt enough tracks along the road to improve the average speed.

This is clearly a very political and complex subject. And bringing it up in the US is really quite innovative and politically risky as your post amply shows.

Now our money (1)

Cornwallis (1188489) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611639)

is going to be thrown away on the Disorient Express.

Ride the Rails (1)

Locdonan (804414) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611643)

Our country is unique in the fact that people don't tend to live more than an hour away from their work. This would mean that each trip would be very short, eliminating the benefit of high speed rails.

I would love to see high-speed rail though, if only for long trips. Getting to see other parts of the country in a day rather than 2 or 3 days would energize the travel businesses.

Re:Ride the Rails (2, Insightful)

Bossk-Office (1025872) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611783)

How is that unique to the US? Many countries are so small that it's not even possible to live more than an hour away from the workplace.

Re:Ride the Rails (3, Insightful)

immakiku (777365) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611789)

I think the point is that this will allow people to work MORE than an hour's drive away from home.

Re:Ride the Rails (4, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611941)

I would love to see high-speed rail though, if only for long trips. Getting to see other parts of the country in a day rather than 2 or 3 days would energize the travel businesses.

Traveling by airplane already accomplishes that. The important distinction for high-speed rail is that it would need to be cheaper than airfare, and/or provide other benefits (e.g. the ability to take extra luggage, such as your car, with you).

The sad thing is, as much as I like trains and wish it would, I just don't see that being successful. Even the normal, slow Amtrak fares are often more expensive than discount airfare between the same two cities. I can't imagine any scenario, short of huge subsidies (which would be fine with me, but Congress would never approve it), that would allow an expensive, brand-new system to improve on that.

Re:Ride the Rails (2, Insightful)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612095)

Airfares are cheaper cause they are constantly getting bailed out by the fed.

Re:Ride the Rails (1)

TheCycoONE (913189) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612009)

Besides possibly Canada and Russia, I can't think of many countries where people would live further from work than in the US, at least in terms of distance. Unless you mean to say that you have such a great highway system that they can live further away and it doesn't take as long.

Makes Sense (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27611653)

I always see niggers on the train.

They are obviously going somewhere, but for some reason I just can't imagine them working.

More details at White House website (5, Informative)

wiredog (43288) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611665)

Here [whitehouse.gov] .

Absolutely... (5, Insightful)

thered2001 (1257950) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611671)

If it is priced less than air travel and it provides service to places I need to go.

Re:Absolutely... (1)

boguslinks (1117203) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611849)

They will subsidize it until its (visible) price is less than air travel.

Absolutely not! (2, Insightful)

InsaneProcessor (869563) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611863)

Just look at Amtrak. Prices are too high and it is going broke.

Hardly anybody really uses a transit system in the U.S. That is why they have to paid for by the taxpayers. More people pay for bus and train systems than actually use them. The city I live in, opted out years ago because it was costing about $35,000 per year per rider. Whenever you look at actual cost per user, it isn't worth it. Just more waste of my money.

Wait.... (1)

MindSlap (640263) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611673)

Didn't the Simpson's already do this?

Re:Wait.... (1)

agnosticanarch (105861) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611865)

Simpsons did it!

What about us lazy slobs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27611675)

You'll be given cushy jobs!

We're ready!! (1)

micromegas (536234) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611677)

Duluth, MN to Mpls/St.Paul will allow our state to participate in the future! It's going to happen. I have tech students using open transport tycoon to model this as a high school IT / Game design project

I like rail! Great mass transit in Europe (3, Interesting)

uncledrax (112438) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611683)

Personally I like rail.. the bad part however is it will cost ALOT.. and Amtrak isn't exactly doing a 'great' job thus far.

Will it create jobs? Absolutely.. will it lower congestion at airports, absolutely..

Will it work as a mass-transit system (be sustainable, profitable, used): I'm willing to find out, but it ends up horribly mismanaged and failing or inaccessible because of it; I'm gonna slap someone.

Re:I like rail! Great mass transit in Europe (2, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611727)

Will it create jobs? Absolutely..

NOT.

Pork barrel schemes don't create jobs, they only move them from the wealth-creating part of the economy to the wealth-destroying part.

-jcr

Re:I like rail! Great mass transit in Europe (2, Insightful)

BCW2 (168187) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611813)

Don't forget that under this administration the jobs will be union only. Forget about the 75% of workers that don't belong to one.

Re:I like rail! Great mass transit in Europe (1)

SargentDU (1161355) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612127)

Mod the above up! It is the way this administration / congress works.

Re:I like rail! Great mass transit in Europe (4, Informative)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611857)

Why do you think that's automatically a 'pork barrel' scheme?

Rail systems are absolutely superb in European countries (very often it's FASTER to take a train then fly by plane).

USA could use something like this.

Re:I like rail! Great mass transit in Europe (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27611815)

Will it work as a mass-transit system (be sustainable, profitable, used): I'm willing to find out, but it ends up horribly mismanaged and failing or inaccessible because of it; I'm gonna slap someone.

You mean, like the airline industry? Or GM and Chrysler?

Re:I like rail! Great mass transit in Europe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27612007)

I've been living in the Netherlands for the past several months, and the public transportation here is great - but not cheap. What makes it viable, I think, is that they don't have the sprawl we do. I think the only way HS Rail would work in the US would be to have it run between major cities. No stops if population is less than 1/4 million or so. And it would have to be >100mph and *not* have to arrive 2 hrs early for security screenings to draw riders away from cars and planes.

works in germany (4, Informative)

pimpimpim (811140) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611711)

Germany is a pretty car-obsessed country but even here the fast trains have a nicely working system. One could say that there are many things wrong with it: tickets are expensive, it has cost that state a lot of money to build it, and for anything longer than a 6 hour drive, taking the plane is just as fast. That said, I use it with cheap early-booked tickets (30-60 euro independent of distance), it has onboard wlan for T-Mobile customers, per every pair of seats there is a power outlet. And when I arrive, I'm completely relaxed, in shape, and in the center of the town I want to be. Overall, it's a win. The US has a different geography though, many suburbs etc, not always a connecting public transport system. But if they start in places like california or the east coast, and build up from there, it could well work.

Germany's cities are much closer together. (2, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611847)

In the USA, the speed of air travel is a compelling advantage over rail. That's why passenger rail in this country declined from a major industry to a government-sponsored museum hobby.

If passenger rail travel were economically viable here, it wouldn't take tax money to keep it alive.

-jcr

Re:Germany's cities are much closer together. (2, Insightful)

CommandoCody (1154955) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612039)

While air travel is technically much faster than rail, once you add in the overhead of scheduled flights, delayed flights, arriving 3 hours early at the airport, waiting for your connections, etc. it often seems that driving would be faster.

On the other hand, rail travel could be just as vulnerable to some of these delays.

Re:works in germany (3, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611913)

You also have the distance problem.
When I used to travel a lot a train never would have been an option. The distances where all too great for rail or I doubt that the train would have gone to where I needed to go.
The only a few places in the US I can see it working.
The North East corridor. Boston/New York/Philly/DC, San Diego/LA/SF and maybe up to Portland and Seattle, Dallas/Houston, and maybe Miami up to Palm Beach, Orlando, Tampa and that is a big maybe.
 

Re:works in germany (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612113)

Well the distance issue would be helped if our train system were modern and actually fast. And what kind of an argument is it to say, "We shouldn't expand our rail system because our current system doesn't go where I need to go, and therefore isn't useful"? If it's not going where people need to go, then it seems like that's a case for expansion.

Re:works in germany (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27611925)

You are going to find strange bedfellows in the opposition to this plan, namely the landowners who would lose their property to imminent domain, and then the airlines who would have to compete with high-speed rail, and last but not least, the rail companies who already run track from coast to coast. You would have regional conflicts between different quasi-governmental entities as to who controls the lines (or more importantly, collects the money). Oh, and don't forget the automobile and oil industries, as well as all the road contractors out there. And the airport facilities and their industries that are necessary to support them.

Yep. Too many rice bowls, and they all have to be carefully protected.

Monorail! Monorail! Monrail! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27611721)

The ring came off my pudding can!

Is this the new line that's an express from disneyland to vegas?

Yeah, that benefits the average US citizen and isn't corporate pork in any way shape or form.

I'd do it. (1)

KefkaZ (1393099) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611723)

I think this is a good thing, because I'd rather take a train from Detroit to Chicago than fly it, due to the price and pain-in-the-ass that is flight security these days. I'm not sure how this is big government other than the price tag. We paid for the highways in America and people don't bitch out government for that these days. I see some of these being much more effective than others. The Chicago hub would be wonderful for the Midwest but some of the others(Pittsburgh - Harrisburg - Philly? Really?) seem destined to flop. In short if I can take a train that takes just as long as a flight, avoid airport security and not have to pay to check my luggage, I'm a happy camper.

Doubtful (1)

BCW2 (168187) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611731)

Where is there mass transit that works in the U. S.?
Boston to Washington corridor, Chicago, LA and Frisco. That's about it. Most people haven't seen it and therefore won't trust it.
If it is cheaper and more convenient that flying or driving medium distances, it might have a chance. If it can be built.
Add in that it's another massive spending program that there is no money to pay for and this idea just won't fly.

Re:Doubtful (1)

zenyu (248067) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611945)

Boston to Washington corridor, Chicago, LA and Frisco. That's about it. Most people haven't seen it and therefore won't trust it.

You do realize most Americans live in those places and the vast majority of the Federal government's revenue is generated in those places?

Re:Doubtful (1)

Improv (2467) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612059)

There's also a lot of mass transit within (some) cities that works to varying degrees. I live in Pittsburgh, which has "okay" public transit - good enough for me to have sold my car a few years ago with only occasional regrets. Some other cities have better PT, a few have worse..

What about when I get there? (5, Insightful)

qbzzt (11136) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611735)

High speed inter-city rail means that when I get to my destination I have to rely on public transportation (not very efficient in most US cities), or rent a car.

If I'm renting a car, this doesn't reduce congestion. The congestion is in the cities themselves, not between them. Also, the car rental costs money. I doubt it will be cheaper than driving.

I'd love to see rail as a replacement for flying, but I doubt it will be fast enough.

Re:What about when I get there? (2, Insightful)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611973)

Well, and do you now fly with your car in a baggage section of a plane?

Fast railways are great for distances like 400-600km (they are too big to comfortably drive by car and too small for planes).

Re:What about when I get there? (1)

Iskender (1040286) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612053)

If I'm renting a car, this doesn't reduce congestion. The congestion is in the cities themselves, not between them. Also, the car rental costs money. I doubt it will be cheaper than driving.
I'd love to see rail as a replacement for flying, but I doubt it will be fast enough.

How is arriving at an airport without a car any different from arriving at a railway station without a car?

Re:What about when I get there? (1)

dvice_null (981029) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612129)

> I have to rely on public transportation (not very efficient in most US cities), or rent a car. ... or you could walk, take a taxi or you could implement community bicycle program: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_bicycle_program [wikipedia.org]

Bullet Trains (4, Interesting)

Dr. Pants (179300) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611747)

Give me something at least resembles the Shinkansen and I'll ride it.

Texas? (0)

Moderator (189749) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611749)

Would this thing go through Texas as well?

Depends on several factors (1)

Dotren (1449427) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611773)

Is it affordable? Is there a line to where I want to go? If not, will there be one in the near future or is there at least connecting services?

It's certainly an interesting idea for connecting cities. Once in a city, I think there are better transit methods (there are still lots of places that don't have these yet) like bus service, taxis, subways, or monorails. I could see these services combined with high speed rail making a change in how people travel IF it's more affordable than flying and less of a hassle.

The other thing is the current rail service in between these proposed lines. I don't know how it is now, but I know the Amtrak train that goes between Texas and Southern California used to be late constantly, up to a day in some cases, due to being considered lower priority rail traffic by Union Pacific who owns the rail. High speed may get you to one city but if the existing rail lines from there are slow or even cause you to come in late then theres a problem.

If I could... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27611775)

If I could go from Chicago to San Jose for half the price of an airline ticket, Yes. In other words, the train would have to be close to me and go where I need to go in order for me to use it.

Obligitory (5, Funny)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611777)

But the economy's still all cracked and broken!

Sorry guys, Obama's spoken!

Monorail... Monorail... Monorail!

its about population density (3, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611797)

rail is king is japan and europe because these places are so much more dense population wise than the usa. however, this is on average. rail can be king in the usa in dense areas like california, and the northeast. rail doesn't make sense in kansas or nebraska. still, a high speed rail link between major urban centers has some value. fast enough, and they can compete well with air travel. it will be very expensive to set up, but once the infrastructure is in place, its nothing but gravy savings

even with all of that considered, the usa still has to look beyond the automobile in an age of ever increasing energy insecurity, and rail and nuclear are neglected and unsexy but utterly solid alternatives to oil funded geopolitical problems and oil fueled atmospheric degeneration: never mind the CO2, air quality in our cities is a valid reason to go to more rail. when you fill up your SUV, you fund russian neoimperialism, you fund islamic fundamentalism, you fund trolls like chavez in venezuela. who funds the enemies of the usa in this world? soccer moms do. this is an insanity that has to end, and if it means we ride more trains, then its a no brainer

Yes, if (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27611801)

In a flash, PROVIDED there's none of that security theatre crap that goes on in the airports, and whatever entity that runs the rail system doesn't treat people like the airlines or commuter railroads...

Cost (3, Insightful)

clinko (232501) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611805)

The only big highspeed I know of is the Acela, which goes from NYC to Boston or D.C.

The price: $90 each way, no wifi.

Or you can take a bus for $20 that has Wifi.

I hear the Acela is nice, but I'd rather buy a DS for my bus ride, and i'd still save money.

Great idea (1)

mc1138 (718275) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611807)

With services planes consistently becoming more unbearable, and trains plagued by delays and generally slow transit times, roughly the same as driving, this really is a great idea. I would love to be able to to have more of the country easily accessible, via a quick, easy to use, and hopefully not too expensive, travel network, without all the hassle of going to an airport. The US is sadly way behind on the times when it comes to rail.

US and rails (1)

qbzzt (11136) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611909)

The US is sadly way behind on the times when it comes to rail.

It's because any form of public transportation requires a certain population density. Most of the US isn't densely populated enough.

If a plague killed six in seven Britons, they'd have the same population density the US has now.

Re:US and rails (1)

mc1138 (718275) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612001)

I suppose that depends on where the live, quite a bit of the Easy coast, and certain parts of the west coast are pretty packed. President Obama seems to be wanting to focus this on high density areas at least initially. Also, it would seem to follow that allowing an ease of transportation would allow for less densely populated areas to find at least some benefit either from people coming in that otherwise wouldn't or making more highly populated areas more accessible.

Flight - Car or Train? (1)

shribigb1234 (1403957) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611817)

Only if these "High Speed Trains" are cheap. If I am driving alone from NY to washington DC it will cost me less than 40 bucks. Can these train prices will be comparable?? In Europe flights cost almost the same as TGV or Thallys. It will definitely create good competitive market in US and more JetBlue like flight companies will be formed in US and we "The Consumers" will get good prices for the flights.

Was Killed in Texas: Have another Tea Party (1)

bluewhalewars (1239970) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611823)

Back in the late 80s early 90s there was a big push for a rail system between Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin, Houston, and San Antonio. Basically Southwest Airlines and their Lobby killed it. Possibly with the Airlines hurting like they are, they may not be able to "derail" it like they did in the past, but it will be a war.

Re:Was Killed in Texas: Have another Tea Party (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611933)

Southwest Airlines and their Lobby killed it.

If that's true, then good for them. They saved the taxpayers a hell of a lot of money that would have gone down a rathole.

-jcr

No (1)

joeyspqr (629639) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611843)

I live just close enough (one suburb to the next) to work that there will be no rail. I live just far enough (about 8 miles)that a bike ride across 2 two canyons is a serious work out, and there are no shower facilities at a job that requires 'business casual'. My hours are just irregular enough to make carpooling problematic. I am required to go to different sites almost every day. Pretty much need to have a car available to me.

Totally (3, Informative)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611875)

Heck yeah. Why wouldn't I? I love the train.

  • Much less likelihood of getting stuck in a traffic jam.
  • I now have significantly more time to do what I want. If I'm driving, I'm concentrating on driving. If I'm sitting on a train, I can enjoy the scenery, read a book, pull out my laptop and do some work if I feel up to it, or take a nap if I don't.
  • Bring it. I don't even care if they're not such high-speed trains. (Remember the silly claims about the Acela so-called high-speed trains in the Northeast corridor? Laughable. I'll just take the regular trains that get there ten minutes later and cost half the price.)

    All I want is more connections. If I could take the train to work I would. Even transferring to a local bus would work for me. Presto: I now have an extra couple of hours per day for reading, studying, whatever I want. My commute is just wasted time.

Re:Totally (1)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612057)

Yeah, Amtrak in the Northeast is nice. I take it fairly often between New Haven and Baltimore/Washington. Beats driving on I-95 for sure, and when gas was $4 / gal., add in tolls, and depending on when you went it was cheaper.

The Acela is certainly more comfortable, but way overpriced. I only take it when it's comp'ed.

We already have rail (3, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611879)

Remember Amtrack anyone? The giant government boondoggle that loses money every year?

What makes anyone think that Amtrack:TNG is going to be a better idea? It's going to be a huge buildout expense, disrupt many communities, and in the end will still be slower than airline travel.

If you want something visionary, how about supporting large scale consumer adoption of small regional airports and new, small advanced planes that take far fewer people but connect small airports all over with mass transit in each city? It's like the dream of the flying car but with practicality behind it and yields a lot more flexibility.

The USA: Developing Country (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27611887)

How is it that places like Japan, Shanghai, Germany, and various other places have High Speed rail systems, and the United States doesn't? Anyone else find it ridiculous that the trains we have now, go the same speed they did 150 years ago?

High Speed Rail could change the face of travel and industry. A Mag-Lev train doing 260 miles an hour would generate faster travel (and will aleviate the nerve-wracking experience of flying for people like me) and delivery time for industry. It's a win-win situation.

For a site so dedicated to progress and competition in technology, there sure are a lot of people who're too afraid to look at the positive sides of this.

The problem of Big (1)

tsstahl (812393) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611891)

High speed rail sounds really good.

The problem is that the U.S. is huge. There aren't too many routes that make high speed rail profitable.

I suppose a number of lines going to Vegas and Florida could come close to breaking even.

Let me be the first to name this a Train To Nowhere.

We already have Amtrak. Remove grade crossings and update the signaling and anti-tampering systems and the locomotives can go 'high speed' on existing infrastructure.

Finally, it is quite hard to have 'high speed' rail when it has to stop in every congressional district multiple times.

Reasons it won't work (0)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611903)

1) US loves cars people won't commute by train...

Okay accept for in the North East where its pretty normal and that line from Boston down to Washington that people use.

2) America is really big

What do you mean you can get across Spain, France and Germany at speed (a pretty large area).

3) People will prefer to fly

Go to London, think about going to Paris, think about checking in at the airport... take the train

4) Trains are imperialist as they always drive on the left

Got me there, its true they do indeed always effectively drive on the left on a 2 track system.

So the real reason it won't work is because of 1776.

I'm very glad... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27611921)

that we have all the spare cash to go build "good idea!" projects like this.

Really, it's just wonderful.

Since when?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27611929)

Since when has it been the President's job to act a dictator of what the USA's market should do and/or wants? Suggesting infrastructure project (bridges, pipes, etc.) were one thing, but this just sounds like the President is intentionally trying to step on the free markets toes.

If a government sponsored high-speed rail could be /half/ as efficient as the private sectors already established (and profitable) rail system (think Amtrak) it still wouldn't be worthwhile. I mean, if more highspeed rail were profitable (e.g., the free market has a damand for it), don't you think Amtrak would have already expanded to accomodate the additional income? Granted that true, then it's proven not profitable and will fail no matter which entity funds it (Amtrak OR the government).

In other words, even /more/ of your tax dollars flushed down the toilet (just like the AIG "'bail-out" bonuses, etc., etc., etc.)

If it's affordable, I would LOVE it. (5, Interesting)

aussersterne (212916) | more than 5 years ago | (#27611999)

I hate owning a car. Cars are a pain in the ass. They burn fuel, need repairs, require me to get them inspected, cost tons of money to clean, dirty easily, have to be parked, etc.

I have been to nearly every state in the U.S. either by car or by plane. I've crossed the country four times from end to end by road. In nearly every one of these cases, rail would have been my first choice, but Amtrak always costs significantly more than plane or car.

I LOVE the rail systems in Europe. I LOVE the relaxation, the space, the reasonable air and relaxed rules (unlike plane travel) and the fact that I get to see lots of places without having to be stuck in traffic in them. It's damn nice to go by rail.

Within cities, I love commuter and transit rail systems. I took the BART when I lived in San Francisco and I took the TRAX when I lived in Salt Lake City and I took the TriMet when I lived in Portland and I took the El when I lived in Chicago and I now use the MTA Subway system heavily in NYC.

I love, love, love rail and it would be a dream come true if someone at the top of this country could put together a working rail system that's affordable between major cities in the way that Europe's rail system is.

If the price can even match the actual purchase price of air travel, I'd take rail instead at least 75% of the time.

If rail ends up being 2x or 3x more than air, as it has been, though, I'll still end up driving or flying. Right now in the U.S. long-distance and inter-city train is a luxury mode of transportation.

Anybody know? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612005)

Out of curiosity, and for historical comparison's sake, does anybody remember what the critical reception of the 1956 interstate highway scheme looked like? In the longer term, its judgement seems to have been highly favorable(with huge amounts of commercial traffic dependent on it, and even fairly hardcore anti-fed free marketeer types not saying much about it, despite it being a gigantic federal public works project).

I'd be interested to know how the reaction to this scheme compares to the reaction to that one.

I've been carless for over a year now (1)

dmuth (14143) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612015)

And have instead been relying on Philadelphia's Regional Rail [septa.org] to get to work. It's so much nicer than having to drive into work. Consider the following:

- 25 minute train ride versus a 45-60 minute drive

- I can read or sleep on the train. Can't do either when driving!

- I no longer have to worry about maintaining my car, insurance, gas prices, etc. Not only do I have more peace of mind, but I'm saving hundreds of dollars per month now.

I've noticed something else when dealing with public transit companies, they respect us more than car companies. Every time I took my car in for maintenance, or when I would buy a new car, I would also feel like I was being taken advantage of--it was just this unpleasant vibe I got from doing business with the dealership. But with public transportation, I don't get the same feeling.

Don't get me wrong, SEPTA has tried raising its rates and cutting service a number of times, but when that happens, there is a public outcry as passengers criticise the company en masse, and SEPTA backs down. That's the way it should be, and it's worked out pretty well so far.

Please, Mr. Obama, build more trains. I'll ride 'em!

Why high speed rail? Why not trains for cars? (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612067)

Seriously, I don't know why people keep talking about high speed rail connecting cities. Think out side the box.

Trains are so much efficient on fuel, the typical claims of a gallon of diesel to move a ton of freight some 400 miles. Imagine driving a typical two ton car on to a flat bed rail car at the intersection of say I-76 & I 79, and the train hauls it for some 200 miles non stop at some 70 MPH and drops off at some major intersection like I75&I80. Fuel cost to the railroad less than 10$. Given volume, the rail roads can and should be competing with your interstate highway. Add high way toll, savings on rental car on destination, savings on motel stayovers along the way, etc that will give enough pricing power to the railroads to make a play for a significant chunk of medium distance road travel by car. Then they can add internet connections at 5$, DVD rentals and food concessions for additional revenue. Once they have a basic service that breaks even and makes a modest profit they can play for higher fee first class service. Most truckers drive their trucks for 8 or 10 hours and take a mandatory rest break. They would gladly park their trucks on flatbed railcars and cover some 200 miles while they sleep if it is cost effective

Instead they are looking for another pie in the sky high speed train to compete with airlines. This has the potential to steal all travel less than 200 miles from the airlines.

About time. (2, Insightful)

hunteke (1172571) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612075)

Would you travel on the new high speed lines?"

Absolutely, yes.

If I had to travel to anywhere it serviced, or had friends nearby the service areas, totally. It is so much more efficient for my time to sit on a train and read a book, type on my computer, or sleep than it is to be forced to pay attention to the road. Or, for air travel, I have a lot of stop and go action, driving to the airport, waiting in the security line, getting on and off the plane, inability to use electronic devices for large swaths of travel, etc. (Plus, no power.)

To make it analogous to computers, think of the brain as a processor. It's hella wasteful for it to be sitting idle. Public transportation lets it be more productively active. Parallel work flows.

Can rail work in the land where the car is king?

Yes, but it's much harder for the "older generation" to see it. (You can define older generation for yourself.) As a 25 year-old, I grew up with congested roads, idiot drivers (you don't even know who you are!), and 30-minutes or more as a standard driving time. Hello suburbia and rural areas. Conversely, my father grew up when gas was 23 cents a gallon, and folks bought cars every other year because they were so cheap. Sunday drives "just because" were common, and, at the risk of getting flamed, with a slightly richer average socio-economic status associated with cars then, also came a slightly more educated and conscientious crowd -- i.e. less idiots on road in general.

I won't claim that I'm the norm, but I do claim that I'm on some part of a trend that will eventually be the norm.

Public transportation will happen, whether it's the rails this year, maglev in 20 years, or something else. Like a lot of other socially stagnant issues, the timeline is associated with the old ones digging their heels in. Change is hard, but when they die, it gets easier. Kind of like racist attitudes. (With exceptions, racist people generally don't change their minds. They die.)

Good stuff. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27612077)

I like this modernisation that's been happening recently with the new city in Florida and now this. I think it's very important to update our technology with emerging needs, and it's difficult in a highly conservative society.

"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change." -Charles Darwin

Can't mix freight and passenger railways (5, Insightful)

MillenneumMan (932804) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612083)

Obama's plan simply will not work because he plans to mix freight and passenger rail routes. I would not call the examples in Japan and France a _financial_ success, but they are indeed impressive technologically. However, neither of those systems would work if they did not dedicate their tracks to passenger transportation. Freight would slow everything down dramatically.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?